Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramesses II/1

Ramesses II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delisted. Although this article has many good qualities, the lack of sourcing is a fatal flaw that has not been addressed. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left several lists of problems on the talk page as part of a GA Sweeps review that has been running since March (my fault for an unexpected Wikibreak). In that time periodic attempts have been made to clean up the article, but not have systematically addressed the problems with it. Short cuts have also been made, for example I tagged a lot of uncited material that was then simply hidden rather than sourced or deleted. Large parts of the article have also been cut out in an attempt to improve the prose, and so I am no longer sure that this article is comprehensive. An attempt to raise interest from people at Wikiproject:Ancient Egypt provoked comment but little action and as I have made edits to the article in an attempt to assist improvements, I am no longer sure if this passes or fails the criteria. Therefore I am listing this here to generate wider comment and consensus. I have no prejudice on whether the article is kept or delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward keep. While some material may be hidden, the article is still substantial and broad enough to merit GA status. Majoreditor (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I too lean towards keep; like Majoreditor I think the article is sufficiently broad to meet the GA criteria. I do think that there are a couple of things that ought to be attended to first though:

• I've been through and done a quick copyedit, but some of the prose is unintelligible to me. For instance this: "Ramesses decided to eternalise himself in stone, so he ordered to change the way and the principle the stone was shaped. Previous pharaohs had carved across the images and words of their predecessors, and the elegant reliefs could have been easely transformed, so Ramesses insisted on a different style where the pictures were instead deeply engraved in stone. They showed and shined more clearly on the Egyptian sun reflecting his relationship with the sungod, Ra". I think I know what this is getting at, but I'm not confident enough to rewrite it.

• I'd like to see the citations made consistent. Ref #63 uses "op. cit" (why?), ref #21 uses "pp. 253ff", ref #28 uses "p.223–224", and ref #15 uses "pp.170–172".

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I too am leaning towards keep. Mall's copyediting was great and I can't find the phrase he's quoted above in the article. —Giggy 08:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in the second paragraph of Building activity and monuments. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I like that part as it stands; it's quite poetic. Still, how about something like "As did his predecessors, Ramesses had Egypt's royal statuary and monuments altered to reflect his own likeness and accomplishments. However, he wished to prevent his successors doing the same, and in a bid to immortalise himself in stone, he ensured the carvings went deep and could not be easily undone." I can't think of how to work the Ra bit in (presumably it refers to polishing the stonework), but hopefully it's a start. EyeSerene^talk 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I really don't think I'll ever get to like "... to change ... the principle the stone was shaped". I much prefer your version. But the Ra bit I just don't understand at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Heh. Re-reading, perhaps it's just referring to the fact that, because the carvings were deeper, they were clearer and more distinct in the sunlight. With that bit being uncited though, I can't pretend I'm happy with the entire paragraph, and the Ra bit definitely needs backing up as it's stating opinion (I think!) EyeSerene^talk 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, you're probably right about that Ra bit. You'll have to excuse my plodding scientific mind; I need to see things spelt out, no poetic analogies for me. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten that bit now that you've explained it to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. There's a lot of leaning going on here :-) which suggests to me an article which does not meet the criteria, but is getting an easy ride because it is quite a nice article on an interesting subject, and it would be a pity to delist it. The vague and opinionated nature of the hidden material (most of which I have removed) should sound alarm bells. Sure enough, reading the article reveals many GA problems. I will focus on unsourced statements of opinion.

  "Although the famous Battle of Kadesh often dominates the scholarly view of Ramesses II's military prowess and power, he nevertheless enjoyed more than a few outright victories over the enemies of Egypt." The second statement is arguably justified by the rest of the section; the first statement is unsourced.

  "There must have been a naval battle somewhere near the mouth of the Nile, as shortly afterwards many Sherden are seen in the Pharaoh's body-guard where they are conspicuous by their helmets with horns with a ball projecting from the middle, their round shields and the great Naue II swords with which they are depicted in inscriptions of the Battle of Kadesh.[20]" OR: [20] sources only the sword.

  "His records tell us that he was forced to fight a Palestinian prince who was mortally wounded by an Egyptian archer, and whose army was subsequently routed." Unencyclopedic; maybe the source at the end of the paragraph supports this, but that seems unlikely to me.

  "In a sense, however, the Battle of Kadesh was a personal triumph for Ramesses, as after blundering into a devastating Hittite ambush, the young king courageously rallied his scattered troops to fight on the battlefield while escaping death or capture." Unencyclopedic, unsourced, editorialized.

  "Canaanite princes, seemingly influenced by the Egyptian incapacity to impose their will, and goaded on by the Hittites, began revolts against Egypt." Seemingly influenced?

  "This demand precipitated a crisis in relations between Egypt and Hatti when Ramesses denied any knowledge of Mursili's whereabouts in his country, and the two Empires came dangerously close to war."

  "The Hittite king encouraged the Babylonian to oppose another enemy, which must have been the king of Assyria whose allies had killed the messenger of the Egyptian king." Must have been?

  "Although the exact events surrounding the foundation of the coastal forts and fortresses is not clear, some degree of political and military control must have been held over the region to allow their construction." Again!

  "By becoming a god, Ramesses dramatically changed not just his role as ruler of Egypt, but also the role of his firstborn son, Amun-her-khepsef."

  "In the third year of his reign Ramesses started the most ambitious building project after the pyramids, that were built 1,500 years earlier. The population was put to work on changing the face of Egypt." Just two sentences from two completely unsourced paragraphs in the same vein.

  "Ramesses II did become the legendary figure he so desperately wanted to be, but this was not enough to protect Egypt."

  "However, this is not surprising since few pharaohs wished to record natural disasters or military defeats in the same manner that their rivals documented these events (as in the Biblical narratives)."

Geometry guy 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair observation. As the article stands right now it would really have to be delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has been much improved, e.g. thanks to your edits, so I don't think we need to be too regretful. If there were a content expert with sources to hand improving the article now, then we could prolong this GAR, but as far as I can see that is not the case. Geometry guy 20:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the prose has greatly improved, but without some serious sourcing work we can't let this one through. EyeSerene^talk 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Stele of Sheikh Saad

{{During the exploration of the Sheikh Saad Shrine by Orientalist Bedřich Hrozný, a memorial stele of Egyptian Pharaon Ramses II}} --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)